What about Andres Duanyís ideas donít you like?

I know that I am still young, and I donít have as much experience as many of you, but I am wondering why so many people hate Andres Duany? He helped to promote a change in the world of planning, and from what I can tell some of his ideas seem to be good. So I am not fully understanding why there is such anger towards him.

What about his New Urbanism approach donít you like?
What are your thoughts on Smart Growth or form base coding as promoted by Duany?

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

Physical Determinism

I generally like the ideas that he has produced but have two concerns that really give me doubt about their long-term viability:

1. The New Urbanists are physical determinists, when it comes right down to it. Physical determinism, which I think is a term that Dolores Hayden came up with, suggests that the built environment is the basis for all social structure and interactions. In other words, make it designed well and crime and other troubles of the world will go away. I think the physical structure is part of the problem but there are a variety of other factors that go into making a good place. One is an adequate set of social services for the down-on-their-luck. Another is adequate funding for affordable housing. For example, the HOPE VI program is designed to tear down nasty old megablocks of affordable housing and replace them with new urbanist style neighborhoods- a good idea. But since these neighborhoods are less dense and have market-rate units in them you end up with far less affordable housing than you did before. Its not a coincidence that HOPE VI was an idea of Jack Kemp's when he headed HUD which was designed to REDUCE the stock of affordable housing.

2. Some element of self-marketing- to some extent the New Urbanists are out to change the world, but they also are "doing well by doing good." Its hard to separate the good ideas from the marketing sometimes, and as a practicing planner I have a hard enough time implementing the good ideas without wasting time on marketing.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts about why there is a backlash to some of these good ideas. The holier-than-thou attitude which some New Urbanists express (see James Howard Kunstler) doesn't help- it gives good ideas a bad name.

I would also add that form-based code is a good idea that many members of the public understand even less than regular zoning, and so it can be very hard to make it work in practice.

Originally posted by michaelskis

I know that I am still young, and I donít have as much experience as many of you, but I am wondering why so many people hate Andres Duany? He helped to promote a change in the world of planning, and from what I can tell some of his ideas seem to be good. So I am not fully understanding why there is such anger towards him.

What about his New Urbanism approach donít you like?
What are your thoughts on Smart Growth or form base coding as promoted by Duany?

The general distaste for Duany from my perspective comes from his "I know better than you" attitude and "planners are doing everything wrong" perspective that rubs a lot of us the wrong way.

Just my opinion.

"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

well....

Just like Starchitects, some of these new urbanist types like to portray themselves as deities, when in reality they are just using history as a marketing tool......It really is our (planners/architects) fault to some degree, we prop them up.....

Also: If a geographer like Duane Marble can have groupies and a "possie", (verified at the 1992 IGC-International Geographical Congress meeting in DC) then there is hope for all mankind

Most of the NU development I've seen so far is pretty elitist--even the "market-rate" rental stuff in NU developments tends towards the high end, putting it out of reach for a lot of people. And some of it gets built in greenfields, rather than integrated infill, so you still have to drive to your walkable neighborhood. Interesting ideas, but I'd like them more if they were applied to more than just the upper 5% of the population.

First let me say that I live in a city with several DPZ developments. The firm I work for even did an analysis for one of the developers attempting to discern how the "town center" in their project could best be marketed (seeing as that it was on the periphery of a medium-sized Southern city on a farm-to-market road at the edge of the earth). In short, the development is still spra*l. Pretty spra*l, but spra*l none-the-less. 10,000 acres of new urbanism on a greenfield. Granted, DPZ didn't choose the land, nor is it responsible for the loss of one of the most beautiful pieces of open space left in the area, but it still leaves me with a bad taste.

On several occasions, I have heard Mr Duany speak about the evils of uncontrolled growth, yet here he is placing his stamp on a project that is nothing more than a glorified tract housing development. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Which is it? How is a 10,000 acre greeenfield development on the edge of a city supposed to work for the betterment of area residents? No one works there, there are no stores in the "town center" (as no retailers will touch it because it's too far from anything else), thus the walkability factor goes out the window. Granted, the houses are being snapped up as fast as they build them, but all that does is increase traffic on a narrow two-lane road that must be used to take residents anywhere (as a side note, there is no money available for road improvements, so the eventual 11,000 people who will live there will be faced with LONG commutes). The automobile must be used to do everything from getting groceries to mailing a letter.

While I was working on the study, Mr. Duany came to a Charlotte AIA meeting and spoke about the perils we place our cities in by building unsustainable developement. We force residents to live in edge cities with no options for shopping, entertainment, schools, etc. due to poor urban planning. What? Wasn't there a big DPZ logo on the site plan I had in my office? Wasn't this development 20 miles from downtown with nothing else anywhere around it? Was I missing something?

I think DPZ is a firm of talented designers, but they must realize that New Urbanism only works as well as it's allowed to. They can't have their Principal going to meetings all over the U.S. telling folks one thing, then selling out their services to do quite another.

The general distaste for Duany from my perspective comes from his "I know better than you" attitude and "planners are doing everything wrong" perspective that rubs a lot of us the wrong way.

Just my opinion.

Preach on...

I don't have a problem with Duany's ideas. Heck, I think most of them are pretty good. His ideas have several problems though, namely that he created them in a vacuum for the most part and failed to account for the political realities of many cities. He also seems to believe that New Urbanism is the ONLY answer and that people that live in the burbs are just flat wrong and that the typical suburb option should not even be available. He is also to quick to blame all of society's ills on the typical suburb. I think his ideas are just one key of many to improve the style/quality of development in the U.S. I will also say this for many of his projects: they are just prettier versions of suburbia and don't address many of the problems.

My biggest issue though: who is so arrogant that they copyright their code?!? Also, he actually seems to think that his code can apply anywhere, which is not true for ANY code. Sure, they say that they customize them for each community, but how much customizing do you think they actually do?

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

My biggest issue though: who is so arrogant that they copyright their code?!? Also, he actually seems to think that his code can apply anywhere, which is not true for ANY code. Sure, they say that they customize them for each community, but how much customizing do you think they actually do?

I can answer that question. They give you a copy of the code and tell you to customize it. They do not fiddle with their code at all. It is provided as an 'as-is' product.

The plan they created was a decent general plan (great graphics, renderings, print quality, but average content- a lot of regurgitation). It sets the framework for the community, but we've got to tailer the specifics.

I don't have a problem with Duany's ideas. Heck, I think most of them are pretty good. His ideas have several problems though, namely that he created them in a vacuum for the most part and failed to account for the political realities of many cities. He also seems to believe that New Urbanism is the ONLY answer and that people that live in the burbs are just flat wrong and that the typical suburb option should not even be available. He is also to quick to blame all of society's ills on the typical suburb. I think his ideas are just one key of many to improve the style/quality of development in the U.S. I will also say this for many of his projects: they are just prettier versions of suburbia and don't address many of the problems.

My biggest issue though: who is so arrogant that they copyright their code?!? Also, he actually seems to think that his code can apply anywhere, which is not true for ANY code. Sure, they say that they customize them for each community, but how much customizing do you think they actually do?

I like how you put that. I figured some of you might have even worked on a project with or against him, and was just wondering if it was the person that most people dislike, or if it was the ideas that he brings to the table. Some of his concepts seem to have a lot of use to them when modified to a specific location.

I donít think that there is any cookie cutter approach to planning, but the more that I get into my planning career, the more I am fascinated with urban core redevelopment and design, and wondering how some of his ideas would truly play into the real world issues.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

I have had this place rammed down my throat by many thoughtful planners as the ideal way to convert a shopping plaza into a traditional downtown. It has been around for better than a decade now as basically a high density commercial development. The first residential units are finally under construction - high end studio units for some of the commercial tenants. In the meantime it is a tremendous traffic generator with limited parking and too narrow roads for the truck traffic it generates. Most of the truck loading areas are located on the outskirts of the project adjacent to long standing residential neighborhoods. Its impacts have been far worse than the problem it was designed to solve and its clerical employees will never be able to afford to live in the housing it creates - if it ever creates the housing that was supposed to be part of the original deal.

The operators of the Commons have signed a non-compete agreement with Stop and Shop Corporation. As such the original supermarket that the Commons incorporated (Star Market now owned by Shaw's) is not allowed to expand on the site. Forcing them to relocate to a new development site down the road.

I have been to many smart growth workshops over the past 15 years that have idolized DPZ and Mashpee Commons as the solution to our commercial strip development traffic problems - but traffic studies do not support this worship.

Planning is much like acting, as my old theater professor used to say, "If you sin, sin boldly, only you know if you are ad libbing." I follow this adage almost daily.

I have had this place rammed down my throat by many thoughtful planners as the ideal way to convert a shopping plaza into a traditional downtown. It has been around for better than a decade now as basically a high density commercial development. The first residential units are finally under construction - high end studio units for some of the commercial tenants. ...

I was always under the impression that the town kept fighting the residential portion of the development. It really is a more attractive strip mall with some opportunities to walk outdoors once you drive there. The "lessons learned" are probably more in the design of the architecture than the site design.

In RI you can't say anything bad about Mashpee Common's developer Buff Chase who has been redeveloping lots of historic buildings in downtown Providence. He is our saviour.

I would have to say it started as a typical chicken and egg. The town originally wanted it hand in hand. The developer needed the commercial to generate the capital for the residential. By the time he had the capital, he had a very intense project with lots of traffic. The latest proposals appear to be housing that is actually not located within the commons but adjacent to it. The housing above the commercial structures are far less than what was originally proposed. The occupancy of the first units was recently heralded in the newspaper as an artist moved in upstairs to her studio. These units are being marketed as owner/proprietor spaces, not exactly affordable housing being targeted.

Luckily I do not live or work in Mashpee. Just have been forced to sit through too many presentations due to the interests of the smart growth/Traditional Neighborhood Development types who focus on Mashpee Commons. What is happening with historic rehab in places like Providence is far better than Mashpee Commons.

Planning is much like acting, as my old theater professor used to say, "If you sin, sin boldly, only you know if you are ad libbing." I follow this adage almost daily.

Most of the NU development I've seen so far is pretty elitist--even the "market-rate" rental stuff in NU developments tends towards the high end, putting it out of reach for a lot of people. And some of it gets built in greenfields, rather than integrated infill, so you still have to drive to your walkable neighborhood. Interesting ideas, but I'd like them more if they were applied to more than just the upper 5% of the population.

I agree with Plannerbabs. A good many of DPZ/NU developments amount to Disneyfied towns in greenfields for the wealthy. However, that is not what the grand idea was when it first came out. They were supposed to mirror a traditional town with a mix incomes. The good I think came out of it was in forced public sector planners to look at our regs and see if we were discouraging that type of development. If forced us to be flexible. As a result, I encourage developers to try to beinnovative with their developments in my community.

I had been thinking about posting a topic re: Duany as well. The criticism is very interesting and is kind of an omnipresent undercurrent. I had the opportunity last term to watch a taped lecture that he delivered at my University a decade or so ago, and it was quite revealing. If nothing else he is an absolutely brilliant observer. The insight he imparted and the observations he shared were masterful, I thought.

So far as I can tell, this is what rubs people the wrong way about him (correct me if I am straying).

-He seems nearly incapable of making a realistic new urbanist development... most projects of DPZ have this plastic, artificial feel. It seems he has never quite escaped Seaside's resort atmosphere. Some of his infill developments in Europe are very promising though.

-His unabashed praise for New Urbanism will only cause further public distrust of planners when the obvious realization is made that a few square block new urbanist development is still open to influence from an entire city of suburb form (it is not a magical salve). In other words, building a NU development within four arterial roads is going to do absolutely NOTHING for improving walkability or transit-based commuting, but it will be hoisted up as some sort of victory anyways despite what the obvious reality is. Disparity such as that between the people that experience it and those that keep repeating the mantra of a reality that isn't so cannot lead to good things.

-More of a criticism of New Urbanism rather than Duany himself, I feel that NU is poorly matched to handle aggregate transport loads. The entire concept focusses on everyone living very close to work and their immediate needs, and that is not always feasible. Even if that were so, people still travel and visit. Transport infrastructure is needed, and so are roads. Transit is great, but what if you need to move something larger than a backpack, or go grocery shopping for a family of four?

-Perceived as pompous, might just be passion or his response to his detractors; might be that he actually is a jackass (although from viewing his lecture, I lean towards him not being a jackass).

I had the opportunity last term to watch a taped lecture that he delivered at my University a decade or so ago, and it was quite revealing.

Thanks for making me feel old - I watched that lecture live!

I don't have a problem with Duany per se, though I can see how he has become to be perceived as arrogant. I have been disappointed with some of the neo-traditional/new urbanism developments put into the suburbs around Toronto, mainly because they appear to be developed in isolation. That is not necessarily the fault of the developer - it is much easier to implement change on private land than it is to retro-fit change in surrounding lands. I don't know for sure but I have a feeling that the strict regulatory codes haven't taken off up here.

Ah, lucky. I would have liked to see it live. What were your impressions at the time? Have they changed?

Well that was the point I was hoping to get across... that a square block NU development does not alter the urban form around it should not be startling. These developments, as you said, do not exist in isolation. The problem, I think, is that Duany has in the past showered praise on NU that perhaps could have been better tempered and grounded by also talking about the limitations of ANY new movement in its ability to change the urban whole.

I believe the question was "what about Duany's ideas don't you like?", not "what do you think of Duany as a dude?" As planners we ought to be grateful for people like him and others who have brought an innovative perspective to city-building and not just accepted the status quo.

As for the criticism of NU for being physical determinism- think Daniel Burnham didn't feel the same way about City Beautiful? Shouldn't great urban design strive for this at some level. Yes NU is idealistic and is usually built on greenfield sites in this country (see the latest JAPA for an article about Canada's love for NU) but its principles can inform us how to create sustainable communities.

But I'll concede that Duany and company are maddeningly stubborn control-freaks. Just think if they focused their energy on revitalizing older suburbs with their ideas rather than creating their own little paradises on the fringe.

P.S. Traffic on the cape has always been a nightmare. Parts of the Cape (think Barnstable) are way overdeveloped. I have a hard time believing Mashpee Commons created a horrible traffic situation that wasn't already there but I'll take our Dennis poster's word for it.

Just think if they focused their energy on revitalizing older suburbs with their ideas rather than creating their own little paradises on the fringe

Exactly. I love Kunstler's writings, I even enjoy Duany's books for a while but at some point it all becomes an exercise in self flagellation. It was Duany and Kunstler's idea's that got me thinking about Real Estate Finance, it's an option I might go with. Thanks guys.

True

I think you raise some good points and that some of these ideas are useful. But they are somewhat irrelevant in the urban redevelopment planning that people do around where I am- we are trying to revitalize the old urbanism, not create new urbanism.

Maybe I just am not an urban designer at heart but I would rather see a variety of planning issues addressed than live somewhere "pretty". Some of the best places in the world are not "pretty"- eg. Wenceslas Square in Prague, many parts of NYC, etc.

On the other hand, I have no problem with NU tools as part of an overall toolbox that is balanced with other planning goals. And if I had to compare a greenfield New Urbanist development to a standard suburban subdivision I would likely choose the NU one...

Originally posted by hilldweller

I believe the question was "what about Duany's ideas don't you like?", not "what do you think of Duany as a dude?" As planners we ought to be grateful for people like him and others who have brought an innovative perspective to city-building and not just accepted the status quo.

As for the criticism of NU for being physical determinism- think Daniel Burnham didn't feel the same way about City Beautiful? Shouldn't great urban design strive for this at some level. Yes NU is idealistic and is usually built on greenfield sites in this country (see the latest JAPA for an article about Canada's love for NU) but its principles can inform us how to create sustainable communities.

But I'll concede that Duany and company are maddeningly stubborn control-freaks. Just think if they focused their energy on revitalizing older suburbs with their ideas rather than creating their own little paradises on the fringe.

P.S. Traffic on the cape has always been a nightmare. Parts of the Cape (think Barnstable) are way overdeveloped. I have a hard time believing Mashpee Commons created a horrible traffic situation that wasn't already there but I'll take our Dennis poster's word for it.

What about his New Urbanism approach donít you like?
What are your thoughts on Smart Growth or form base coding as promoted by Duany?

I read one of his books back in the 1990's about his developing New Urbanism. He stated that his goal was to re-create the city - neighborhoods that people could walk in, with commercial shopping and jobs within walking distance. All the warm fuzzy things people used to get by living in high density urban areas.

Then his book went on to show his work. His "neighborhoods" were exactly like suburbs in that they were still disconnected from other areas, and the only access was by feeder roads! No transit. The housing was still one-flavor - single family - maybe with an apartment - and a yard. I concluded from that, that New Urbanism is just better designed suburbs - not a return to cities and not a radical change.

Before I ever joined Cyburbia, a friend of mine, who is very involved in neighborhood activism, told me that Duany designed this lovely new neighborhood for her city. She stood with him on a cliff or hill overlooking the site and he made grandiose pronouncements about what it would look like. Then she asked things like "But where does the gas station go??" He was rather offended but it was clear to her that this would mean folks in this nice upscale neighborhood would drive to her lower-class neighborhood to gas up. She described it as "It's like they include a mouth because eating is pleasant but no anus because going to the bathroom isn't so pretty." She didn't seem too impressed with either him or his ideas.

I think it is really hard to NOT get a swelled head in the face of the kind of furor and fervor with which his ideas have been met. Also, he has made his career on these pronouncements. I think there has got to be some fear that admitting that maybe he doesn't have all the answers could mean the gravy train would come to a sudden and screachingly painful halt.

I think you raise some good points and that some of these ideas are useful. But they are somewhat irrelevant in the urban redevelopment planning that people do around where I am- we are trying to revitalize the old urbanism, not create new urbanism.

Maybe I just am not an urban designer at heart but I would rather see a variety of planning issues addressed than live somewhere "pretty". Some of the best places in the world are not "pretty"- eg. Wenceslas Square in Prague, many parts of NYC, etc.

On the other hand, I have no problem with NU tools as part of an overall toolbox that is balanced with other planning goals. And if I had to compare a greenfield New Urbanist development to a standard suburban subdivision I would likely choose the NU one...

I have to agree, again focusing on Mashpee and a little on my efforts here in Dennis. It would have been nice to have seen a Mashpee Commons with a focus on revitalizing a village center. Incorporating a traditional downtown. promoting the revitalization of older structures and establishing goals for in-fill, including residential. While I can say hopefully we have learned from Mashpee Commons and our (Dennis's) goals for Dennisport is to revitalize the traditional village and promote mixed use infill, the town I live in, Sandwich, continues to focus on trying to create a new government/activity center that will remove many if not all governmental functions from the towns limited downtown.

I guess my biggest gripe is the focus on new, versus revitalizing and in-fill.

Planning is much like acting, as my old theater professor used to say, "If you sin, sin boldly, only you know if you are ad libbing." I follow this adage almost daily.